Ed Miliband has branded David Cameron a "tainted prime minister" whose failure to stand up to the rich and powerful makes him unable to deliver the change which Britain needs.

Describing the Conservatives as "part of the problem", Mr Miliband said the UK's return to recession has shown Mr Cameron and his party to be tied to a set of outdated and ineffective economic, social and political orthodoxies which are "crumbling before our eyes".

As the prime minister prepares to attend the G20 summit in Mexico, Mr Miliband said the world needs new economic leadership to deliver a global plan for jobs and growth.

He seized on evidence from the Leveson Inquiry of Mr Cameron's close links with senior figures at News International, arguing that it shows him to be someone who stands up for "the wrong people".

In a speech to Labour's National Policy Forum in Birmingham, Mr Miliband said his party's task is to "rebuild Britain" so it works for everyone, and not just a powerful and privileged few.

Describing the next steps in Labour's policy review, Mr Miliband said it will focus on three themes: rebuilding the economy, rebuilding society and rebuilding politics.

He set out his "vision for our future economy", where companies would be regarded as a shared project between workers, management, shareholders and customers, with reduced pay inequality and an end to poverty wages.

Mr Miliband said he wants to create a more equal society, built on "care, compassion and real reciprocity, not just on money, market and exchange".

Labour must restore confidence in politics by "standing up for the many against the interests of the few, however powerful they are", he told his party. He added: "The scale of the crisis we face is enormous."

Conservative Party Deputy Chairman Michael Fallon said: "Ed Miliband was a central figure in Gordon Brown's old team that was known for briefing against a sitting Prime Minister, abusive behaviour and negative spin. Labour were just as close to the Murdochs and to try to score cheap points on this issue is rank hypocrisy."

Comments (20)

Ah yes, the millionaire Ed Miliband, born with a silver spoon in his mouth along with most of the rest of his shadow cabinet decides to speak out about failures to stand up to the powerful on behalf of the ordinary people of this country.

Ed, who was elected by the Unite union which is currently holding London to ransom, though only 47,439 of their members actually voted for him out of the 1,055,074 ballot papers distributed to the members of this union. Yes, he has a lot to teach us about unfairness and vested interests.

And he does know a lot about the kind of access to power that privilege can buy. Ed Miliband after all, had a very brief and unsuccessful career in the media before being given a paid job in politics as a Labour Party researcher. No doubt his father Ralph's reputation as an influential Marxist helped him secure the role as a speechwriter and researcher for the aristocratic Harriet Harman in 1993. In 1994 he switched his personal allegiance to Gordon Brown. Gordon and Ed are mates even now, which may explain why he has never ciritcised his former boss for ruining the economy. But of course, to do that would involve criticising himself because by 1997, following Labour's election victory, Ed Miliband had been appointed as one of Gordon Brown's special advisers with specific responsibility as a speechwriter. He rapidly rose to become one of then-Chancellor Gordon Brown's closest confidantes, being appointed Chairman of HM Treasury's Council of Economic Advisers, based on no relevant experience in the real world of work or business.

In late March 2005, just weeks before the General Election, the rich and powerful Ed Miliband elbowed aside Michael Dugher, a local candidate (though also a "special adviser" to Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon) to be the Labour candidate in the safe Labour seat of Doncaster North. The shortlist for the seat was drawn up without consultation with the local party, but Miliband 'shrugged off' concerns of some local party members that he had no previous ties to the area. Such qualifications are unimportant for people who are rich and well-connected members of the political elite of this country.

After a mere 5 years as an MP, Ed's connections with the rich and powerful paid off again, as our would-be prime minister became leader of his party having never held down a proper job and with only 5 years experience as a tainted MP working closely for and with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Who better to make personal attacks on our behalf on David Cameron?

Ah yes, the millionaire Ed Miliband, born with a silver spoon in his mouth along with most of the rest of his shadow cabinet decides to speak out about failures to stand up to the powerful on behalf of the ordinary people of this country.
Ed, who was elected by the Unite union which is currently holding London to ransom, though only 47,439 of their members actually voted for him out of the 1,055,074 ballot papers distributed to the members of this union. Yes, he has a lot to teach us about unfairness and vested interests.
And he does know a lot about the kind of access to power that privilege can buy. Ed Miliband after all, had a very brief and unsuccessful career in the media before being given a paid job in politics as a Labour Party researcher. No doubt his father Ralph's reputation as an influential Marxist helped him secure the role as a speechwriter and researcher for the aristocratic Harriet Harman in 1993. In 1994 he switched his personal allegiance to Gordon Brown. Gordon and Ed are mates even now, which may explain why he has never ciritcised his former boss for ruining the economy. But of course, to do that would involve criticising himself because by 1997, following Labour's election victory, Ed Miliband had been appointed as one of Gordon Brown's special advisers with specific responsibility as a speechwriter. He rapidly rose to become one of then-Chancellor Gordon Brown's closest confidantes, being appointed Chairman of HM Treasury's Council of Economic Advisers, based on no relevant experience in the real world of work or business.
In late March 2005, just weeks before the General Election, the rich and powerful Ed Miliband elbowed aside Michael Dugher, a local candidate (though also a "special adviser" to Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon) to be the Labour candidate in the safe Labour seat of Doncaster North. The shortlist for the seat was drawn up without consultation with the local party, but Miliband 'shrugged off' concerns of some local party members that he had no previous ties to the area. Such qualifications are unimportant for people who are rich and well-connected members of the political elite of this country.
After a mere 5 years as an MP, Ed's connections with the rich and powerful paid off again, as our would-be prime minister became leader of his party having never held down a proper job and with only 5 years experience as a tainted MP working closely for and with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Who better to make personal attacks on our behalf on David Cameron?Techno3

Techno3 wrote:
Ah yes, the millionaire Ed Miliband, born with a silver spoon in his mouth along with most of the rest of his shadow cabinet decides to speak out about failures to stand up to the powerful on behalf of the ordinary people of this country.

Ed, who was elected by the Unite union which is currently holding London to ransom, though only 47,439 of their members actually voted for him out of the 1,055,074 ballot papers distributed to the members of this union. Yes, he has a lot to teach us about unfairness and vested interests.

And he does know a lot about the kind of access to power that privilege can buy. Ed Miliband after all, had a very brief and unsuccessful career in the media before being given a paid job in politics as a Labour Party researcher. No doubt his father Ralph's reputation as an influential Marxist helped him secure the role as a speechwriter and researcher for the aristocratic Harriet Harman in 1993. In 1994 he switched his personal allegiance to Gordon Brown. Gordon and Ed are mates even now, which may explain why he has never ciritcised his former boss for ruining the economy. But of course, to do that would involve criticising himself because by 1997, following Labour's election victory, Ed Miliband had been appointed as one of Gordon Brown's special advisers with specific responsibility as a speechwriter. He rapidly rose to become one of then-Chancellor Gordon Brown's closest confidantes, being appointed Chairman of HM Treasury's Council of Economic Advisers, based on no relevant experience in the real world of work or business.

In late March 2005, just weeks before the General Election, the rich and powerful Ed Miliband elbowed aside Michael Dugher, a local candidate (though also a &quot;special adviser" to Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon) to be the Labour candidate in the safe Labour seat of Doncaster North. The shortlist for the seat was drawn up without consultation with the local party, but Miliband 'shrugged off' concerns of some local party members that he had no previous ties to the area. Such qualifications are unimportant for people who are rich and well-connected members of the political elite of this country.

After a mere 5 years as an MP, Ed's connections with the rich and powerful paid off again, as our would-be prime minister became leader of his party having never held down a proper job and with only 5 years experience as a tainted MP working closely for and with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Who better to make personal attacks on our behalf on David Cameron?

Techno3 is clearly worried for Cammers prospects; is that because Ed's comments have a ring of truth about them?

Doubtless Techno3 can supply the source that identifies Ed Miliband as a millionaire, NOT. If s/he's got that wrong how much else is fantasy.

Having reported trousered £35 million from the sale of a time share Company isn't Rich Harrington much better placed to claim the "Millionaire" mantle?

[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote:
Ah yes, the millionaire Ed Miliband, born with a silver spoon in his mouth along with most of the rest of his shadow cabinet decides to speak out about failures to stand up to the powerful on behalf of the ordinary people of this country.
Ed, who was elected by the Unite union which is currently holding London to ransom, though only 47,439 of their members actually voted for him out of the 1,055,074 ballot papers distributed to the members of this union. Yes, he has a lot to teach us about unfairness and vested interests.
And he does know a lot about the kind of access to power that privilege can buy. Ed Miliband after all, had a very brief and unsuccessful career in the media before being given a paid job in politics as a Labour Party researcher. No doubt his father Ralph's reputation as an influential Marxist helped him secure the role as a speechwriter and researcher for the aristocratic Harriet Harman in 1993. In 1994 he switched his personal allegiance to Gordon Brown. Gordon and Ed are mates even now, which may explain why he has never ciritcised his former boss for ruining the economy. But of course, to do that would involve criticising himself because by 1997, following Labour's election victory, Ed Miliband had been appointed as one of Gordon Brown's special advisers with specific responsibility as a speechwriter. He rapidly rose to become one of then-Chancellor Gordon Brown's closest confidantes, being appointed Chairman of HM Treasury's Council of Economic Advisers, based on no relevant experience in the real world of work or business.
In late March 2005, just weeks before the General Election, the rich and powerful Ed Miliband elbowed aside Michael Dugher, a local candidate (though also a "special adviser" to Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon) to be the Labour candidate in the safe Labour seat of Doncaster North. The shortlist for the seat was drawn up without consultation with the local party, but Miliband 'shrugged off' concerns of some local party members that he had no previous ties to the area. Such qualifications are unimportant for people who are rich and well-connected members of the political elite of this country.
After a mere 5 years as an MP, Ed's connections with the rich and powerful paid off again, as our would-be prime minister became leader of his party having never held down a proper job and with only 5 years experience as a tainted MP working closely for and with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Who better to make personal attacks on our behalf on David Cameron?[/p][/quote]Techno3 is clearly worried for Cammers prospects; is that because Ed's comments have a ring of truth about them?
Doubtless Techno3 can supply the source that identifies Ed Miliband as a millionaire, NOT. If s/he's got that wrong how much else is fantasy.
Having reported trousered £35 million from the sale of a time share Company isn't Rich Harrington much better placed to claim the "Millionaire" mantle?Arthur

Cameron has no credebility whatsoever any more. The levinson inquiry showed how "in bed" he was with news international "we're in this together, Love U Lots. C'mon he's as bent as Elton John. I hope the phone tapping witch gets 10 years along with murdoch Junior, then we get a full independant inquiry into the whole sorry, sad, sick case.
Cameron backs phone tappers of private individuals. Isn't it funny how they are now trying to rush through legislation to cover his arse.

Cameron has no credebility whatsoever any more. The levinson inquiry showed how "in bed" he was with news international "we're in this together, Love U Lots. C'mon he's as bent as Elton John. I hope the phone tapping witch gets 10 years along with murdoch Junior, then we get a full independant inquiry into the whole sorry, sad, sick case.
Cameron backs phone tappers of private individuals. Isn't it funny how they are now trying to rush through legislation to cover his arse.RUinsane

Techno3 wrote:
Ah yes, the millionaire Ed Miliband, born with a silver spoon in his mouth along with most of the rest of his shadow cabinet decides to speak out about failures to stand up to the powerful on behalf of the ordinary people of this country.

Ed, who was elected by the Unite union which is currently holding London to ransom, though only 47,439 of their members actually voted for him out of the 1,055,074 ballot papers distributed to the members of this union. Yes, he has a lot to teach us about unfairness and vested interests.

And he does know a lot about the kind of access to power that privilege can buy. Ed Miliband after all, had a very brief and unsuccessful career in the media before being given a paid job in politics as a Labour Party researcher. No doubt his father Ralph's reputation as an influential Marxist helped him secure the role as a speechwriter and researcher for the aristocratic Harriet Harman in 1993. In 1994 he switched his personal allegiance to Gordon Brown. Gordon and Ed are mates even now, which may explain why he has never ciritcised his former boss for ruining the economy. But of course, to do that would involve criticising himself because by 1997, following Labour's election victory, Ed Miliband had been appointed as one of Gordon Brown's special advisers with specific responsibility as a speechwriter. He rapidly rose to become one of then-Chancellor Gordon Brown's closest confidantes, being appointed Chairman of HM Treasury's Council of Economic Advisers, based on no relevant experience in the real world of work or business.

In late March 2005, just weeks before the General Election, the rich and powerful Ed Miliband elbowed aside Michael Dugher, a local candidate (though also a &quot;special adviser" to Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon) to be the Labour candidate in the safe Labour seat of Doncaster North. The shortlist for the seat was drawn up without consultation with the local party, but Miliband 'shrugged off' concerns of some local party members that he had no previous ties to the area. Such qualifications are unimportant for people who are rich and well-connected members of the political elite of this country.

After a mere 5 years as an MP, Ed's connections with the rich and powerful paid off again, as our would-be prime minister became leader of his party having never held down a proper job and with only 5 years experience as a tainted MP working closely for and with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Who better to make personal attacks on our behalf on David Cameron?

Techno3 is clearly worried for Cammers prospects; is that because Ed's comments have a ring of truth about them?

Doubtless Techno3 can supply the source that identifies Ed Miliband as a millionaire, NOT. If s/he's got that wrong how much else is fantasy.

Having reported trousered £35 million from the sale of a time share Company isn't Rich Harrington much better placed to claim the "Millionaire" mantle?

I am mroe worried about the prospects for our country with Miliband forming the other side of the pun ch and judy show. I happen to think that Cameron is a very poor Prime Minister, but not for any reason relating to his wealth. He is a poor Prime Minister because of his decisions in government, just as Miliband would be a poor Prime minister because of HIS decisions in government. Miliband is said to be worth about £2.5million, but he denies it because he wants to pretend he is a pasty-eating 'man of the people', which he is not. However, he does admit to being worth over £1.5m:

'Miliband: "I live in a relatively expensive house."
Morgan: "How much is it worth?"
Miliband: "I'm not sure, over a million."
Morgan: "How much exactly?"
Miliband: "I don't know Piers, I haven't checked."
Morgan: "You don't know? Everyone else in Britain knows what their house is worth."
Miliband: "It was bought for £1.6m."
Morgan: "When?"
Miliband: "A year and a bit ago."
Morgan: "Well remembered."

Source: GQ magazine

[quote][p][bold]Arthur[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote:
Ah yes, the millionaire Ed Miliband, born with a silver spoon in his mouth along with most of the rest of his shadow cabinet decides to speak out about failures to stand up to the powerful on behalf of the ordinary people of this country.
Ed, who was elected by the Unite union which is currently holding London to ransom, though only 47,439 of their members actually voted for him out of the 1,055,074 ballot papers distributed to the members of this union. Yes, he has a lot to teach us about unfairness and vested interests.
And he does know a lot about the kind of access to power that privilege can buy. Ed Miliband after all, had a very brief and unsuccessful career in the media before being given a paid job in politics as a Labour Party researcher. No doubt his father Ralph's reputation as an influential Marxist helped him secure the role as a speechwriter and researcher for the aristocratic Harriet Harman in 1993. In 1994 he switched his personal allegiance to Gordon Brown. Gordon and Ed are mates even now, which may explain why he has never ciritcised his former boss for ruining the economy. But of course, to do that would involve criticising himself because by 1997, following Labour's election victory, Ed Miliband had been appointed as one of Gordon Brown's special advisers with specific responsibility as a speechwriter. He rapidly rose to become one of then-Chancellor Gordon Brown's closest confidantes, being appointed Chairman of HM Treasury's Council of Economic Advisers, based on no relevant experience in the real world of work or business.
In late March 2005, just weeks before the General Election, the rich and powerful Ed Miliband elbowed aside Michael Dugher, a local candidate (though also a "special adviser" to Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon) to be the Labour candidate in the safe Labour seat of Doncaster North. The shortlist for the seat was drawn up without consultation with the local party, but Miliband 'shrugged off' concerns of some local party members that he had no previous ties to the area. Such qualifications are unimportant for people who are rich and well-connected members of the political elite of this country.
After a mere 5 years as an MP, Ed's connections with the rich and powerful paid off again, as our would-be prime minister became leader of his party having never held down a proper job and with only 5 years experience as a tainted MP working closely for and with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Who better to make personal attacks on our behalf on David Cameron?[/p][/quote]Techno3 is clearly worried for Cammers prospects; is that because Ed's comments have a ring of truth about them?
Doubtless Techno3 can supply the source that identifies Ed Miliband as a millionaire, NOT. If s/he's got that wrong how much else is fantasy.
Having reported trousered £35 million from the sale of a time share Company isn't Rich Harrington much better placed to claim the "Millionaire" mantle?[/p][/quote]I am mroe worried about the prospects for our country with Miliband forming the other side of the pun ch and judy show. I happen to think that Cameron is a very poor Prime Minister, but not for any reason relating to his wealth. He is a poor Prime Minister because of his decisions in government, just as Miliband would be a poor Prime minister because of HIS decisions in government. Miliband is said to be worth about £2.5million, but he denies it because he wants to pretend he is a pasty-eating 'man of the people', which he is not. However, he does admit to being worth over £1.5m:
'Miliband: "I live in a relatively expensive house."
Morgan: "How much is it worth?"
Miliband: "I'm not sure, over a million."
Morgan: "How much exactly?"
Miliband: "I don't know Piers, I haven't checked."
Morgan: "You don't know? Everyone else in Britain knows what their house is worth."
Miliband: "It was bought for £1.6m."
Morgan: "When?"
Miliband: "A year and a bit ago."
Morgan: "Well remembered."
Source: GQ magazineTechno3

Have you researched Cameron's father's tax arrangements yet? Now that's interesting given a number of things said about 'we're all in this together' and the closing of loopholes etc or was that quote about something else - it all seems so murky down there - I can't remember.

Interesting points Techno03.
It is a bit ripe but it does not appear to be wrong.
Have you researched Cameron's father's tax arrangements yet? Now that's interesting given a number of things said about 'we're all in this together' and the closing of loopholes etc or was that quote about something else - it all seems so murky down there - I can't remember.Retired Loon in Brighton

Ah yes because we all listen to the damp squib that is Ed Milliband.
Of course the reason we went into recession was because of the policies of the previous Labour government who's last leader was the former Chancellor and left no money in the pot!
Labour seem to have a short memory and not really in any position to criticise.
What this Country needs is an alternative to the big 3 as they are all the same, completely out of touch with normal people and sucking up to big corporations to keep their post PM years lucrative.

Ah yes because we all listen to the damp squib that is Ed Milliband.
Of course the reason we went into recession was because of the policies of the previous Labour government who's last leader was the former Chancellor and left no money in the pot!
Labour seem to have a short memory and not really in any position to criticise.
What this Country needs is an alternative to the big 3 as they are all the same, completely out of touch with normal people and sucking up to big corporations to keep their post PM years lucrative.WibbleFishBananna

Ah yes because we all listen to the damp squib that is Ed Milliband.
Of course the reason we went into recession was because of the policies of the previous Labour government who's last leader was the former Chancellor and left no money in the pot!
Labour seem to have a short memory and not really in any position to criticise.
What this Country needs is an alternative to the big 3 as they are all the same, completely out of touch with normal people and sucking up to big corporations to keep their post PM years lucrative.

Ah yes because we all listen to the damp squib that is Ed Milliband.
Of course the reason we went into recession was because of the policies of the previous Labour government who's last leader was the former Chancellor and left no money in the pot!
Labour seem to have a short memory and not really in any position to criticise.
What this Country needs is an alternative to the big 3 as they are all the same, completely out of touch with normal people and sucking up to big corporations to keep their post PM years lucrative.WibbleFishBananna

ah! Connected to the wrong people?
And who is Red Ed connected to?
And, what decisions did he make when in Government?
And where did they get us?
And does he know many other countries have economic problems...?
And why doesn't he propose what he thinks would be good?
Economic leadership? Tell us where we have gone wrong, Ed! Oh, oops, we went wrong under TB/GB/EBx2!!
We can forget even recent history (2years), all too quickly.
We shall live with TB/GB/EBx2 legacy for many years.......

Why do journalists write this rubbish? Its not worth the paper its written on, nor the time and strain on one's eyes to read it!!

ah! Connected to the wrong people?
And who is Red Ed connected to?
And, what decisions did he make when in Government?
And where did they get us?
And does he know many other countries have economic problems...?
And why doesn't he propose what he thinks would be good?
Economic leadership? Tell us where we have gone wrong, Ed! Oh, oops, we went wrong under TB/GB/EBx2!!
We can forget even recent history (2years), all too quickly.
We shall live with TB/GB/EBx2 legacy for many years.......
Why do journalists write this rubbish? Its not worth the paper its written on, nor the time and strain on one's eyes to read it!!rufus100

ah! Connected to the wrong people?
And who is Red Ed connected to?
And, what decisions did he make when in Government?
And where did they get us?
And does he know many other countries have economic problems...?
And why doesn't he propose what he thinks would be good?
Economic leadership? Tell us where we have gone wrong, Ed! Oh, oops, we went wrong under TB/GB/EBx2!!
We can forget even recent history (2years), all too quickly.
We shall live with TB/GB/EBx2 legacy for many years.......

Why do journalists write this rubbish? Its not worth the paper its written on, nor the time and strain on one's eyes to read it!!

ah! Connected to the wrong people?
And who is Red Ed connected to?
And, what decisions did he make when in Government?
And where did they get us?
And does he know many other countries have economic problems...?
And why doesn't he propose what he thinks would be good?
Economic leadership? Tell us where we have gone wrong, Ed! Oh, oops, we went wrong under TB/GB/EBx2!!
We can forget even recent history (2years), all too quickly.
We shall live with TB/GB/EBx2 legacy for many years.......
Why do journalists write this rubbish? Its not worth the paper its written on, nor the time and strain on one's eyes to read it!!rufus100

RUinsane wrote:
Camoron can't even look after an eight year old child, let alone the country.
Apparently he blamed his daughters disappearance on the last labour government.

When?

[quote][p][bold]RUinsane[/bold] wrote:
Camoron can't even look after an eight year old child, let alone the country.
Apparently he blamed his daughters disappearance on the last labour government.[/p][/quote]When?Brer fox

rufus100 wrote:
ah! Connected to the wrong people?
And who is Red Ed connected to?
And, what decisions did he make when in Government?
And where did they get us?
And does he know many other countries have economic problems...?
And why doesn't he propose what he thinks would be good?
Economic leadership? Tell us where we have gone wrong, Ed! Oh, oops, we went wrong under TB/GB/EBx2!!
We can forget even recent history (2years), all too quickly.
We shall live with TB/GB/EBx2 legacy for many years.......

Why do journalists write this rubbish? Its not worth the paper its written on, nor the time and strain on one's eyes to read it!!

When the banking crisis led to recession the then Labour government rightly took action to save the banking sector. They were then put in a position in which to protect jobs they had to spend more. These were correct economic decisions at the time. Labour knew they had to cut the deficit but to do so immediately was likely to lead to a second recession and quite possibly an economic depression.
As a result of Alastair Darling's plan a certain amount of growth had already come back and unemployment had fallen.
In Feb 2010 more than 60 senior economists signed open letters backing Alastair Darling’s decision to delay government spending cuts until 2011. The letters said that any measures to trim the budget deficit earlier could pull the country back into recession.
The Labour plan was to "halve the deficit over the next four years - indeed, more than halve it," said Labour.
The Conservatives called for more radical, earlier action and said their approach had widespread support.
"There are leading economists who support the Conservative position and, more importantly, there are also leading business organisations and entrepreneurs - people like Richard Branson - who know more about creating jobs than the entire Labour cabinet put together," said shadow chancellor George Osborne at the time.
Obviously, we dont know if Darling's plan would have left us better off than we are - but we do know that Osbourne's drastic early austerity plan catastrophically failed. The economy is in a mess and ordinary people are losing their jobs now as a result.
Hopefully, in 2015 the Tory toffs on the front bench will also be told 'your services are no longer required'.

[quote][p][bold]rufus100[/bold] wrote:
ah! Connected to the wrong people?
And who is Red Ed connected to?
And, what decisions did he make when in Government?
And where did they get us?
And does he know many other countries have economic problems...?
And why doesn't he propose what he thinks would be good?
Economic leadership? Tell us where we have gone wrong, Ed! Oh, oops, we went wrong under TB/GB/EBx2!!
We can forget even recent history (2years), all too quickly.
We shall live with TB/GB/EBx2 legacy for many years.......
Why do journalists write this rubbish? Its not worth the paper its written on, nor the time and strain on one's eyes to read it!![/p][/quote]When the banking crisis led to recession the then Labour government rightly took action to save the banking sector. They were then put in a position in which to protect jobs they had to spend more. These were correct economic decisions at the time. Labour knew they had to cut the deficit but to do so immediately was likely to lead to a second recession and quite possibly an economic depression.
As a result of Alastair Darling's plan a certain amount of growth had already come back and unemployment had fallen.
In Feb 2010 more than 60 senior economists signed open letters backing Alastair Darling’s decision to delay government spending cuts until 2011. The letters said that any measures to trim the budget deficit earlier could pull the country back into recession.
The Labour plan was to "halve the deficit over the next four years - indeed, more than halve it," said Labour.
The Conservatives called for more radical, earlier action and said their approach had widespread support.
"There are leading economists who support the Conservative position and, more importantly, there are also leading business organisations and entrepreneurs - people like Richard Branson - who know more about creating jobs than the entire Labour cabinet put together," said shadow chancellor George Osborne at the time.
Obviously, we dont know if Darling's plan would have left us better off than we are - but we do know that Osbourne's drastic early austerity plan catastrophically failed. The economy is in a mess and ordinary people are losing their jobs now as a result.
Hopefully, in 2015 the Tory toffs on the front bench will also be told 'your services are no longer required'.ajtib3

rufus100 wrote:
ah! Connected to the wrong people?
And who is Red Ed connected to?
And, what decisions did he make when in Government?
And where did they get us?
And does he know many other countries have economic problems...?
And why doesn't he propose what he thinks would be good?
Economic leadership? Tell us where we have gone wrong, Ed! Oh, oops, we went wrong under TB/GB/EBx2!!
We can forget even recent history (2years), all too quickly.
We shall live with TB/GB/EBx2 legacy for many years.......

Why do journalists write this rubbish? Its not worth the paper its written on, nor the time and strain on one's eyes to read it!!

When the banking crisis led to recession the then Labour government rightly took action to save the banking sector. They were then put in a position in which to protect jobs they had to spend more. These were correct economic decisions at the time. Labour knew they had to cut the deficit but to do so immediately was likely to lead to a second recession and quite possibly an economic depression.
As a result of Alastair Darling's plan a certain amount of growth had already come back and unemployment had fallen.
In Feb 2010 more than 60 senior economists signed open letters backing Alastair Darling’s decision to delay government spending cuts until 2011. The letters said that any measures to trim the budget deficit earlier could pull the country back into recession.
The Labour plan was to &quot;halve the deficit over the next four years - indeed, more than halve it," said Labour.
The Conservatives called for more radical, earlier action and said their approach had widespread support.
"There are leading economists who support the Conservative position and, more importantly, there are also leading business organisations and entrepreneurs - people like Richard Branson - who know more about creating jobs than the entire Labour cabinet put together," said shadow chancellor George Osborne at the time.
Obviously, we dont know if Darling's plan would have left us better off than we are - but we do know that Osbourne's drastic early austerity plan catastrophically failed. The economy is in a mess and ordinary people are losing their jobs now as a result.
Hopefully, in 2015 the Tory toffs on the front bench will also be told 'your services are no longer required'.

Ah but they didn't just save 'the banking sector', did they? They stuffed the pockets of the greedy failures who were in charge in the banking sector and let them walk off with billions of pounds of taxpayers' money as bonuses as a reward for their failure.

As for all the might have beens, Ed Miliband was working for Brown when he sold off our gold reserves at rock bottom prices and blew our surpluses so there was no money in the kitty when the bust inevitably came. The man honestly thought they had abolished the laws of economics. Darling and Miliband both sat nodding in agreement as Brown stoked up an entirely bogus boom based on a property bubble fuelled by loose regulation and cheap credit. They have the judgement and integrity between them of a couple of peanuts.

[quote][p][bold]ajtib3[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]rufus100[/bold] wrote:
ah! Connected to the wrong people?
And who is Red Ed connected to?
And, what decisions did he make when in Government?
And where did they get us?
And does he know many other countries have economic problems...?
And why doesn't he propose what he thinks would be good?
Economic leadership? Tell us where we have gone wrong, Ed! Oh, oops, we went wrong under TB/GB/EBx2!!
We can forget even recent history (2years), all too quickly.
We shall live with TB/GB/EBx2 legacy for many years.......
Why do journalists write this rubbish? Its not worth the paper its written on, nor the time and strain on one's eyes to read it!![/p][/quote]When the banking crisis led to recession the then Labour government rightly took action to save the banking sector. They were then put in a position in which to protect jobs they had to spend more. These were correct economic decisions at the time. Labour knew they had to cut the deficit but to do so immediately was likely to lead to a second recession and quite possibly an economic depression.
As a result of Alastair Darling's plan a certain amount of growth had already come back and unemployment had fallen.
In Feb 2010 more than 60 senior economists signed open letters backing Alastair Darling’s decision to delay government spending cuts until 2011. The letters said that any measures to trim the budget deficit earlier could pull the country back into recession.
The Labour plan was to "halve the deficit over the next four years - indeed, more than halve it," said Labour.
The Conservatives called for more radical, earlier action and said their approach had widespread support.
"There are leading economists who support the Conservative position and, more importantly, there are also leading business organisations and entrepreneurs - people like Richard Branson - who know more about creating jobs than the entire Labour cabinet put together," said shadow chancellor George Osborne at the time.
Obviously, we dont know if Darling's plan would have left us better off than we are - but we do know that Osbourne's drastic early austerity plan catastrophically failed. The economy is in a mess and ordinary people are losing their jobs now as a result.
Hopefully, in 2015 the Tory toffs on the front bench will also be told 'your services are no longer required'.[/p][/quote]Ah but they didn't just save 'the banking sector', did they? They stuffed the pockets of the greedy failures who were in charge in the banking sector and let them walk off with billions of pounds of taxpayers' money as bonuses as a reward for their failure.
As for all the might have beens, Ed Miliband was working for Brown when he sold off our gold reserves at rock bottom prices and blew our surpluses so there was no money in the kitty when the bust inevitably came. The man honestly thought they had abolished the laws of economics. Darling and Miliband both sat nodding in agreement as Brown stoked up an entirely bogus boom based on a property bubble fuelled by loose regulation and cheap credit. They have the judgement and integrity between them of a couple of peanuts.Techno3

Come on Techno -the property bubble was in the US which led directly to the banking crisis which the British banks had got badly tied up in.
I know its vogue to blame Labour for everything that went wrong in the world but there has to be some realism.
Ironically what no-one says now is that Osbourne spent most of the period to 2007 saying Labour were over regulating the financial sector. He also claimed in 2006 he would not change spending plans if the Tories were elected from that of Labours.
And its been the Tories who sold off Northern Rock to pal Branson at a vastly knocked down price which has led to millions of pounds of taxpayers money being lost.
Its also the Tories who've done tax-reduction deal after tax-reduction deal with big business -looking after their pals as usual.
And we all know who are losing out don't we.
Roll on 2015.

Come on Techno -the property bubble was in the US which led directly to the banking crisis which the British banks had got badly tied up in.
I know its vogue to blame Labour for everything that went wrong in the world but there has to be some realism.
Ironically what no-one says now is that Osbourne spent most of the period to 2007 saying Labour were over regulating the financial sector. He also claimed in 2006 he would not change spending plans if the Tories were elected from that of Labours.
And its been the Tories who sold off Northern Rock to pal Branson at a vastly knocked down price which has led to millions of pounds of taxpayers money being lost.
Its also the Tories who've done tax-reduction deal after tax-reduction deal with big business -looking after their pals as usual.
And we all know who are losing out don't we.
Roll on 2015.ajtib3

ajtib3 wrote:
Come on Techno -the property bubble was in the US which led directly to the banking crisis which the British banks had got badly tied up in.
I know its vogue to blame Labour for everything that went wrong in the world but there has to be some realism.
Ironically what no-one says now is that Osbourne spent most of the period to 2007 saying Labour were over regulating the financial sector. He also claimed in 2006 he would not change spending plans if the Tories were elected from that of Labours.
And its been the Tories who sold off Northern Rock to pal Branson at a vastly knocked down price which has led to millions of pounds of taxpayers money being lost.
Its also the Tories who've done tax-reduction deal after tax-reduction deal with big business -looking after their pals as usual.
And we all know who are losing out don't we.
Roll on 2015.

If you don't think there has been a property bubble in the UK you clearly are not a first time buyer failing to buy your first home or an owner trying to find a buyer without making a loss.

As for the Tories handling of things, I agree, they are a poor government. The people who are losing out are the British public. Neither party is up to the job.

[quote][p][bold]ajtib3[/bold] wrote:
Come on Techno -the property bubble was in the US which led directly to the banking crisis which the British banks had got badly tied up in.
I know its vogue to blame Labour for everything that went wrong in the world but there has to be some realism.
Ironically what no-one says now is that Osbourne spent most of the period to 2007 saying Labour were over regulating the financial sector. He also claimed in 2006 he would not change spending plans if the Tories were elected from that of Labours.
And its been the Tories who sold off Northern Rock to pal Branson at a vastly knocked down price which has led to millions of pounds of taxpayers money being lost.
Its also the Tories who've done tax-reduction deal after tax-reduction deal with big business -looking after their pals as usual.
And we all know who are losing out don't we.
Roll on 2015.[/p][/quote]If you don't think there has been a property bubble in the UK you clearly are not a first time buyer failing to buy your first home or an owner trying to find a buyer without making a loss.
As for the Tories handling of things, I agree, they are a poor government. The people who are losing out are the British public. Neither party is up to the job.Techno3

Cleopatra wrote:
I only have to look at Milliband's face to know that I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him!

I think that Labour have a grandstanding front bench.Wallace,Mr and Mrs Balls,Harridan Harperson et al will be still in opposition in 2016.

[quote][p][bold]Cleopatra[/bold] wrote:
I only have to look at Milliband's face to know that I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him![/p][/quote]I think that Labour have a grandstanding front bench.Wallace,Mr and Mrs Balls,Harridan Harperson et al will be still in opposition in 2016.Brer fox

Cleopatra wrote:
I only have to look at Milliband's face to know that I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him!

I think that Labour have a grandstanding front bench.Wallace,Mr and Mrs Balls,Harridan Harperson et al will be still in opposition in 2016.

[quote][p][bold]Cleopatra[/bold] wrote:
I only have to look at Milliband's face to know that I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him![/p][/quote]I think that Labour have a grandstanding front bench.Wallace,Mr and Mrs Balls,Harridan Harperson et al will be still in opposition in 2016.Brer fox

Post a comment

Comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.